The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...

CerebralCortex · 09-06-2009 5:14pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have said nothing about the cut off point for stopping a human life's development. As I keep pointing out I am not having an abortion debate, just pointing out that a new life begins at conception and what connotations you want to add to that is your own business. Whether you want to believe that ending a human life is wrong or not is beyond the scope of my point, I am simply trying to establish that it is a human life

Although, since a human life's development does not begin until conception it's not really possible to stop the process before that point. You can, however, prevent it from starting

Yes but in a strictly biological(unique dna) sense, not in a "I'm self aware and aware I actually have a life" sense surely? Its nowhere being another an individual human. There is the potential alright. You make it sound like you believe that most important part in creating human in its entirety (deserving of human rights) happens at the very point of conception, dare I say neglecting all the years and effort it takes to become an individual. Would I be wrong?

Sam Vimes · 09-06-2009 5:26pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes but in a strictly biological(unique dna) sense, not in a "I'm self aware and aware I actually have a life" sense surely?

All I'm talking about is the biological sense. The "I'm self aware and aware I actually have a life" sense is only brought up in relation to abortion and in fact is not a requirement on being a life. There is a lot of life which is not self aware. What you're talking about there is whether or not the life is valuable which is beyond the scope of my point.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Its nowhere being another an individual human. There is the potential alright. You make it sound like you believe that most important part in creating human in its entirety (deserving of human rights) happens at the very point of conception, dare I say neglecting all the years and effort it takes to become an individual. Would I be wrong?

I'm not neglecting anything and I'm not saying any part of a life is any more important than any other part. I am simply correcting people who say that either being a sperm is a part of that life or that conception is not the beginning of that life and it actually begins at some arbitrary point after conception that is chosen based on their own personal abortion stance.

CerebralCortex · 09-06-2009 5:31pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

All I'm talking about is the biological sense. The "I'm self aware and aware I actually have a life" sense is only brought up in relation to abortion and in fact is not a requirement on being a life. There is a lot of life which is not self aware. What you're talking about there is whether or not the life is valuable which is beyond the scope of my point.

I'm not neglecting anything and I'm not saying any part of a life is any more important than any other part. I am simply correcting people who say that either being a sperm is a part of that life or that conception is not the beginning of that life and it actually begins at some arbitrary point after conception that is chosen based on their own personal abortion stance.

Again you'd only be correct in saying its new genetic material. Am I wrong? That is a continuation of life with fresh DNA.

Sam Vimes · 09-06-2009 5:36pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Again you'd only be correct in saying its new genetic material. Am I wrong? That is a continuation of life with fresh DNA.

It doesn't have to be fresh DNA. It could be a twin or a clone. It's a new life because it has begun the process of growth that begins at conception and ends at death

CerebralCortex · 09-06-2009 5:38pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It doesn't have to be fresh DNA. It could be a twin or a clone. It's a new life because it has begun the process of growth that begins at conception and ends at death

And thats enough to make only pro-life because....?

Sam Vimes · 09-06-2009 5:43pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

And thats enough to make only pro-life because....?

Again, I'm not having an abortion debate. The above is the only thing I'm trying to establish because Wicknight denies it. Many people rely on the incorrect assertion that a foetus is not a human life to justify abortion to themselves and if someone is going to be pro-abortion they should at least be honest with themselves

Dades · 09-06-2009 5:46pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

... and I don't believe in God because I am scared of Hell :rolleyes:

A rolleyes. Bravo!

CerebralCortex · 09-06-2009 5:50pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again, I'm not having an abortion debate. The above is the only thing I'm trying to establish because Wicknight denies it. Many people rely on the incorrect assertion that a foetus is not a human life to justify abortion to themselves and if someone is going to be pro-abortion they should at least be honest with themselves

So I'd be wrong if I said a foetus is not human life only on its way to being a human i.e the potential for human life?

Sam Vimes · 09-06-2009 5:54pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So I'd be wrong if I said a foetus is not human life only on its way to being a human i.e the potential for human life?

If you add arbitrary connotations to "human life" that shouldn't be there such as "must have a brain", "must be able to feel pain" or "must have blue eyes" then you can decide whether you're right or wrong but if you take the medical definition of human life then you would be wrong

CerebralCortex · 09-06-2009 6:15pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you add arbitrary connotations to "human life" that shouldn't be there such as "must have a brain", "must be able to feel pain" or "must have blue eyes" then you can decide whether you're right or wrong but if you take the medical definition of human life then you would be wrong

Okay cool. The scientific/medical consensus is that definition of a human life?
Honestly it helps your argument but I'm still not wholly convinced that it is an actual human life.

Sam Vimes · 09-06-2009 6:37pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Okay cool. The scientific/medical consensus is that definition of a human life?
Honestly it helps your argument but I'm still not wholly convinced that it is an actual human life.

It's the consensus in everything except abortion where people don't want it to be the consensus

Forgetting about abortion for a minute and whether or not you consider it valuable, why is it not a life? The way I see it, it is a living being and the dna of that being is human, therefore it is a human life. So why is it not a human life?

Goduznt Xzst · 09-06-2009 9:17pm

Dades wrote: »

A rolleyes. Bravo!

Rebutted with sarcasm, and an exclamation mark, well played. Really though, I had written more to reply with, but chose a smiley instead for succinctness.

The whole claim that my "refusal" to accept some "obvious" conclusion for fear of some "repercussions" wreaks of discussions I've had with Christians as to why they believed I would not accept that their opinion was the truth.

It's a false argument that tries to appeal to the subjective morality the individual holds, rather than the objective reality of the topic being discussed.

I was hoping to clarify the terms to try and alleviate the semantic mess that surrounds discussions on abortion. I've already said, I don't agree with abortion myself, so there are no repercussions that I am trying to avoid, but I am arguing that there is no universal reason for the freedom to be removed from the individual. I also find the terminology used by pro-lifers extremely biased. I find the same of PETA releases, words like "culled" get replaced by "murdered". Same meaning, but it evokes a different emotional response.

If I was to say to you "I took a life today"... you would first think of humans, then every other eukaryote in order of reducing complexity. Would you find it normal for someone to say that sentence if they had picked a flower?

Sam Vimes · 09-06-2009 10:09pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I was hoping to clarify the terms to try and alleviate the semantic mess that surrounds discussions on abortion

From my perspective the only reason there's a semantic mess is that people don't like the fact that it's actually very simple so they keep redefining and redefining and redefining until it's finally ok to kill another human being. Really it's as simple as: It's a human life, therefore it's not ok to kill it, whether it has a brain or not, whether it has a nervous system or not, whether it's reached the 24th week or not, whether it can feel pain or not, whether it's in the mother's body or not, whether it can survive on it's own or not, etc etc etc. I think you get the idea

Húrin · 10-06-2009 2:48am

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So you accept then that choosing the point of conception as the cut off point for stopping the biological process of a human life's development is arbitrary. Or do you still think that universally this should always be the cut off point?

In so much as the opposition to murdering the born is universal in human societies, there is no reason not to oppose killing the unborn, universally.

Rev Hellfire · 10-06-2009 8:24am

As an interesting collinearly to this discussion has anyone followed the story of the US woman who murdered her pregnant friend to steal her baby.

Depending of if the baby drew a breath or not she'll also be charged with its murder also according to the article.

Goduznt Xzst · 10-06-2009 9:32am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

From my perspective the only reason there's a semantic mess is that people don't like the fact that it's actually very simple so they keep redefining and redefining and redefining until it's finally ok to kill another human being.

It's not as simple as that though, and I think you know that. When it comes to morality it never is. Animal rights activists would tell you "it's simple, we do not kill any other earthlings, our higher brain functions do not make us distinguishably more important so as to give us the right to choose which other earthlings should live or die"... is it that simple though? You eat the dead flesh of your fellow earthlings don't you, as do I?

Humans define when it is and is not okay to kill other living organisms. If society says a human only attains rights when a nervous system or a brain forms then that is their definition. Humans may also define the sperm and the egg as human and the prevention of the natural process that "begins life" is as bad as murder.

Húrin wrote: »

In so much as the opposition to murdering the born is universal in human societies, there is no reason not to oppose killing the unborn, universally.

I think you'll find you are wrong Húrin. Murdering the born is not universally wrong in human societies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st48Tdd9Sz4

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 10:09am

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Humans may also define the sperm and the egg as human and the prevention of the natural process that "begins life" is as bad as murder.

That would be medically inaccurate and they would be wrong to do so

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It's not as simple as that though, and I think you know that. When it comes to morality it never is. Animal rights activists would tell you "it's simple, we do not kill any other earthlings, our higher brain functions do not make us distinguishably more important so as to give us the right to choose which other earthlings should live or die"... is it that simple though? You eat the dead flesh of your fellow earthlings don't you, as do I?

Humans define when it is and is not okay to kill other living organisms. If society says a human only attains rights when a nervous system or a brain forms then that is their definition.

Humans used to define that black people, women, gay people etc didn't have rights but then we became a bit more enlightened. I see abortion and gay marriage as the last two civil rights struggles yet to be won. Would you be saying "that's society's definition" if it was back in the days when women were fighting for the vote?

There are of course times when it is acceptable to kill another being. We eat animals but people who eat meat will still be against hunting and fur because there is no good reason to kill them in those cases. Murder in self defence is not even considered murder. It can be seen as acceptable to kill one to save many. But you will never see society applaud a person who killed someone because their life was an inconvenience.........except with abortion. And in most cases it's justified through pseudo science and linguistic somersaults to convince themselves there is no moral issue, just like how people used to convince themselves black people were inferior to whites so it was ok to enslave them. Look at this quote from Abraham Lincoln. Even the man who freed the slaves didn't see them as equal because "that was society's definition":

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

I'm for stem cell research because the benefits far outweigh the cost but I cannot accept that it's ok to kill a human being so the neighbours don't think you're a slut or because you're too busy to be pregnant or worse, because you trick yourself into thinking that you're not really killing a human being at all

Dades · 10-06-2009 10:09am

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I was hoping to clarify the terms to try and alleviate the semantic mess that surrounds discussions on abortion...

I also find the terminology used by pro-lifers extremely biased. I find the same of PETA releases, words like "culled" get replaced by "murdered". Same meaning, but it evokes a different emotional response...

If I was to say to you "I took a life today"... you would first think of humans, then every other eukaryote in order of reducing complexity. Would you find it normal for someone to say that sentence if they had picked a flower?

No... So are you saying that we shouldn't suggest that a "life" begins at conception to avoid pro-lifers using this argument?

My point was that you seem more concerned about what the conception idea means in terms of abortion, from both sides of the coin, as well as how the terminology can be misconstrued, when the original discussion was trying to keep the effects of such a concept out of it.

CerebralCortex · 10-06-2009 11:00am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's the consensus in everything except abortion where people don't want it to be the consensus

Forgetting about abortion for a minute and whether or not you consider it valuable, why is it not a life? The way I see it, it is a living being and the dna of that being is human, therefore it is a human life. So why is it not a human life?

I'd have to agree with you to an extent. It is living though not independently of its mother and is not self aware which throws a shadow over whether I would call it absolutely a being or individual. I mean if its not raised to full consciousness and self awareness has it actually "been" in order to be considered a being individual? I think maybe what I value most about being human and what you value about being human start at different points. Trouble with me is I'm certain where that start point is and I guess I'm just exercising that with you.

Naz_st · 10-06-2009 11:25am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's the consensus in everything except abortion where people don't want it to be the consensus

It's not the "consensus", not theologically, not ideologically, not philosphically, not societally and not even medically (the first and most important phase is arguably when the unique DNA coalesces during gamete formation, is a hydatidiform mole a new life?, etc).

I think there is also a definitional difference between when a "new life" starts to grow and when it becomes a living human being. For example, you could certainly argue that for every individual currently alive, their growth started at conception. But that is not the same as every uni-cellular zygote being a living human as it may never become one. A new car on an assembly line might start with an engine block, but an engine block is not a car. The pips in your apple are not the exact same thing as a whole apple tree!

Finally, the Roe vs Wade U.S. supreme court case is the case that resulted in the landmark decision regarding abortion in the U.S. in the seventies (and is still in effect today). Here is an excerpt of what the judges had to say on this exact issue:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 11:27am

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'd have to agree with you to an extent. It is living though not independently of its mother and is not self aware which throws a shadow over whether I would call it absolutely a being or individual. I mean if its not raised to full consciousness and self awareness has it actually "been" in order to be considered a being individual? I think maybe what I value most about being human and what you value about being human start at different points. Trouble with me is I'm certain where that start point is and I guess I'm just exercising that with you.

I would agree with you that it's not an individual with all the connotations that go along with that word until it develops the necessary hardware to become conscious but it is a 'being' because consciousness or individuality are not requirements that are placed on a 'being'.

I wouldn't use the words "what I value most", I value all stages and forms of human equally and so do most other people except in the case of abortion where doing so can be very inconvenient. The way I see it, justifying abortion is a chicken and egg situation. Is abortion ok because the foetus doesn't have rights, or have we decided that the foetus doesn't have rights because we want abortion to be ok?

Goduznt Xzst · 10-06-2009 11:31am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That would be medically inaccurate and they would be wrong to do so

Yes and you are morally inaccurate to say that removing a zygote from a womb is de facto murder. You are "medically" defining a zygote as living, but you are also saying it can be "murdered" as a human. A society can define when and what defines "murder", punishable by law, of a human being.

i.e. many would not think a woman should be charged with murder in the first degree if she took mifepristone the day of conception.

A society could also rule that a man who purposefully made a race of humans sterile was a mass murderer. Killing their race and the possibility of their next generation, even though he actually didn't kill any living humans.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Humans used to define that black people, women, gay people etc didn't have rights but then we became a bit more enlightened.

Yes and it is a very trite pro-life argument. Used also by animal rights activists who feel we will eventually be "enlightened" to never kill another animal for food or clothes.

This enlightenment however is because we have come to a consensus for the majority on a matter of subjectivitiy. Now all born humans have rights to life, but privilege during it and it's quality is defined by your geography, education and happenstance.

I'm sure in your day to day life you support with your feet and your wallet the reduction of rights of countless millions of humans alive now, yet here you are arguing the rights of a zygote that may never even think it's first thought.

Dades wrote: »

My point was that you seem more concerned about what the conception idea means in terms of abortion, from both sides of the coin, as well as how the terminology can be misconstrued, when the original discussion was trying to keep the effects of such a concept out of it.

I think you'll find the original discussion is in the title, it has progressed in a different direction, and is continuing to do so, since then. Yes, I am dealing with what the idea means in terms of abortion because for Vimes it is intrinsically connected. His discussion with Wicknight is not the same as the one I am discussing with him. His argument regarding conception, regardless of how he tries to say it is not his motive, is the basis for his pro-life stance.

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 11:51am

Naz_st wrote: »

It's not the "consensus", not theologically, not ideologically, not philosphically, not societally and not even medically (the first and most important phase is arguably when the unique DNA coalesces during gamete formation, is a hydatidiform mole a new life?, etc).

As I said, it's the consensus everywhere except where people have a vested interest in it not being the consensus. For example, creationists latch onto the idea that there is some debate about their ideals, that there is some doubt and they might be right when in reality there is no doubt anywhere except among those who really really want it to be true. Basically, just because there is debate does not mean one side is not completely wrong. I have never seen an argument for life beginning at some arbitrary point after conception that amounts to any more than "I really really really want it to begin then". A lot of people pick the development of the brain as the beginning of life but how can something grow a brain if it's not a living being

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people instinctively know it's wrong to end a life but they want abortion to be ok so try to come up with a definition of life that excludes foetuses and we end up with what Goduznt Xzst calls the "semantic mess". Really they're just adding connotations to life that shouldn't be there and if they want abortion to be ok they need to drop this preconceived idea that ending a life is always wrong. As I said much earlier in the thread, pro-choice people would be much better off with a mantra like "it doesn't matter that life begins at conception, rights begin with the development of the brain" rather than trying to argue that life doesn't begin at conception because it quite clearly does.

And again, being "the most important phase" does not mean it's the beginning of life. Arguably, the most important phase is the birth of your mother without whom you could not exist but your life doesn't begin on the same day as your mother's or her mother's or her mother's, it begins when your cells undergo their first mitosis.

Naz_st wrote: »

I think there is also a definitional difference between when a "new life" starts to grow and when it becomes a living human being. For example, you could certainly argue that for every individual currently alive, their growth started at conception. But that is not the same as every uni-cellular zygote being a living human as it may never become one. A new car on an assembly line might start with an engine block, but an engine block is not a car. The pips in your apple are not the exact same thing as a whole apple tree!

Wicknight keeps making that point too and I keep pointing out that a zygote that fails to split is a life form with a disease that has prevented it developing and that has effectively died at the earliest point. In order for it to be a life form it must possess the capacity to grow and a zygote that does not split does possess that ability. If you want to abort a zygote that didn't split I have absolutely no problem with that, just like I'd have no problem with you burying someone who had just died. It brings me back to my point about the plane where I could list dozens of tiny conditions that must be met before a plane can take off but it does not change the validity of the statement "planes can fly".

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 11:58am

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes and you are morally inaccurate to say that removing a zygote from a womb is de facto murder. You are "medically" defining a zygote as living, but you are also saying it can be "murdered" as a human. A society can define when and what defines "murder", punishable by law, of a human being.

i.e. many would not think a woman should be charged with murder in the first degree if she took mifepristone the day of conception.

A society could also rule that a man who purposefully made a race of humans sterile was a mass murderer. Killing their race and the possibility of their next generation, even though he actually didn't kill any living humans.

So basically you're saying that a society can define black as white if it wants. You're right of course but that does not stop them being wrong to define it that way. For example defining a man who made a race sterile as a murderer is misunderstanding the word murder but they can define him a cup of coffee if enough people agree to do so.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes and it is a very trite pro-life argument. Used also by animal rights activists who feel we will eventually be "enlightened" to never kill another animal for food or clothes.

Well, maybe we will. But the difference I'd see there is that animals are killed out of necessity. As I pointed out earlier, people will discuss the immorality of hunting and fur while tucking into a steak. There is no necessity to abort a foetus just so the neighbours don't find out

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

This enlightenment however is because we have come to a consensus for the majority on a matter of subjectivitiy. Now all born humans have rights to life, but privilege during it and it's quality is defined by your geography, education and happenstance.

I'm sure in your day to day life you support with your feet and your wallet the reduction of rights of countless millions of humans alive now, yet here you are arguing the rights of a zygote that may never even think it's first thought.

I think it's unfortunate that people are denied their rights in the world but there's not a whole lot I can do about it. Also, denying someone their rights is not the same as ruling that they don't have them. I don't have to argue with anyone that a kid in africa has a right to life that is being denied because everyone already accepts that. I do, however, have to argue with people who have decided arbitrarily that a foetus doesn't have a right to life. If someone told me that there was nothing wrong with killing kids in africa I'd argue with them too

Húrin · 10-06-2009 12:08pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I think you'll find you are wrong Húrin. Murdering the born is not universally wrong in human societies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st48Tdd9Sz4

There's always one! It appears that the reason that the film was made was to solicit sympathy from the majority of humanity which does prohibit murdering people after they're born.

My point is that it is inconsistent for a society to prohibit murder on the grounds that human life should be preserved, but not to prohibit abortion. In terms of western culture in general, that's the society that we ostensibly live in.

Goduznt Xzst · 10-06-2009 12:12pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're right of course but that does not stop them being wrong to define it that way.

Wrong to whom? You? Yes! But then your opinions of right and wrong are subjective, as are mine.

The moment you attempt to confer rights onto any living matter you are being arbitrary. There really is nothing further to say to be honest, because you have in your mind this idea that you are objectively correct.

Any placement of human constructs on natural processes will always be purely subjective and arbitrary. There is no arguing it, it is matter of fact.

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 12:22pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Wrong to whom? You? Yes! But then your opinions of right and wrong are subjective, as are mine.

The moment you attempt to confer rights onto any living matter you are being arbitrary. There really is nothing further to say to be honest, because you have in your mind this idea that you are objectively correct.

Any placement of human constructs on natural processes will always be purely subjective and arbitrary. There is no arguing it, it is matter of fact.

When I said they would be wrong to do so I was talking about things such as calling someone who sterlised a race a murderer. That would be misunderstanding the word murder no matter how many people thought otherwise. I know that it's arbitrary to assign rights to any living being and as I keep saying I'm not trying to do that. The vast majority of people already confer such rights but trick themselves into thinking that a foetus is not a living being. I'm just going to copy and paste my response from earlier:

I'm not trying to change people's opinions on whether or not a life should have rights, whether it be a foetus or a 25 year old, black or white, male or female. That would be an almost impossible task because it is subjective

But a large number of people who are for abortion do consider ending a life to be morally wrong but use linguistic somersaults to fool themselves into thinking that a foetus isn't really a life. They think abortion is ok not because they see the foetus's life as no different to a plant's life but because they consider a foetus to be no different to a toe nail or an egg and that is provably wrong. That is not subjective so it is possible to change those people's minds

If you are not one of those people, if you see the foetus as a human life but still think it's ok to abort it then you are not my target audience

Dades · 10-06-2009 12:31pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes, I am dealing with what the idea means in terms of abortion because for Vimes it is intrinsically connected. His discussion with Wicknight is not the same as the one I am discussing with him. His argument regarding conception, regardless of how he tries to say it is not his motive, is the basis for his pro-life stance.

Surely Sam Vimes' motives should be irrelevant to the question of whether a fertilised egg is inherently different to a separate egg/sperm?

Naz_st · 10-06-2009 12:35pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people instinctively know it's wrong to end a life but they want abortion to be ok so try to come up with a definition of life that excludes foetuses

But there is a semantic difference between when a "new life begins" and an actual human being. In fact, you could say that the first is only true if the latter occurs. I.e. for any living human being, their life began at conception. But every conception doesn't produce a living human. Only after a certain point has it succeeded in doing that, and at that point all the rights conferred on a human is conferred on the unborn human.

In exactly the same way that an Apple tree begins with the pips inside an apple, but we don't consider throwing an apple core in the bin as being the same as chopping down multiple apple trees. It seems like a reasonably objective semantic difference to me, unless you have ideological reasons for believing that after conception the zygote is immediately a fully living human being, and not the single cell it is in reality.

A lot of people pick the development of the brain as the beginning of life but how can something grow a brain if it's not a living being

Again, there is a difference between "living tissue" and a "living being". E.g. cysts can grow on a kidney, but a kidney is not a "living being".

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 12:51pm

Naz_st wrote: »

But there is a semantic difference between when a "new life begins" and an actual human being. In fact, you could say that the first is only true if the latter occurs. I.e. for any living human being, their life began at conception. But every conception doesn't produce a living human. Only after a certain point has it succeeded in doing that, and at that point all the rights conferred on a human is conferred on the unborn human.

In exactly the same way that an Apple tree begins with the pips inside an apple, but we don't consider throwing an apple core in the bin as being the same as chopping down multiple apple trees. It seems like a reasonably objective semantic difference to me, unless you have ideological reasons for believing that after conception the zygote is immediately a fully living human being, and not the single cell it is in reality.

The fact that not all conceptions go on to grow into a baby does not change the validity of my statement in any way. The fact that they did not all progress does not change the fact that they all began there. To refute the statement "life begins at conception" you'd have to show that it actually began somewhere else. Showing that it does not always progress proves nothing. If I said "the race began at the starting line", that statement would not be less valid by you pointing out that some people went to the starting line and then chose not to run. It still began there.

Naz_st wrote: »

Again, there is a difference between "living tissue" and a "living being". E.g. cysts can grow on a kidney, but a kidney is not a "living being".

There is indeed a difference between being living tissue and a "living being". A kidney is living tissue, it is a part of a living being. A foetus is a living being. It is not a part of the mother's body, it is feeding off the mother's body in a similar manner to a tape worm

Dades · 10-06-2009 12:51pm

180 OT posts (mine included) moved from the other thread to this new one...

It took me fcuking ages, in case anyone cares.

Naz_st · 10-06-2009 1:06pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The fact that they did not all progress does not change the fact that they all began there.

You can argue that once they have progressed to be classified as living human beings that their life began at conception. But the point is that that classification is objectively reached only at some point after conception (and subjectively at various points before and after!).

To refute the statement "life begins at conception" you'd have to show that it actually began somewhere else.

No, I don't, since my point (and others) is that where it begins is not an objective determination. For example, I disagree with the current definitions and timelines in the U.S. regarding this in terms of the legality of abortion as much as I disagree with yours.

To boil it down:
Do you think that destruction of apple seeds in an apple core is the same thing as chopping down an apple tree? If yes, we have nothing more to discuss, we simply don't have sufficient middle ground on this one. If no, at what point in the growth of an apple tree would you consider it to be a "tree" and is this determination not subjective?

Goduznt Xzst · 10-06-2009 1:14pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you are not my target audience

Who here is your target audience then? because I have seen nobody thus far who meets the criteria of opinions you are arguing against.

Nobody here has said that a zygote is not living, or not different to an egg. It is different, but why you are choosing this phase of change as noteworthy is what is being questioned.

What is being said is that the living matter after conception is genetically unique, but not distinctly a human being, it therefore remains under the ownership of the host in which it grows. The only deciding factor in when it should be removed from the woman is decided by when it should be conferred with rights.

Also, if you could, I would like some more information (a website perhaps) on this large body of pro-choice advocates who likens the living matter of a zygote to the dead matter in a nail.

Dades wrote: »

Surely Sam Vimes' motives should be irrelevant to the question of whether a fertilised egg is inherently different to a separate egg/sperm?

Like I said, I am not dealing with that question. I believe I have already agreed with Sam earlier in this thread that after conception the living matter is distinctly different to the separate matter before conception. My issue is the distinction in value that he is placing on matter after conception. He has said he is not dealing with it, but it is inferred by the discussion as a whole.

If Sam does not believe that due to the uniqueness of the living matter after conception that all human rights should be conferred on it at this point then please correct me.

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 1:39pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Who here is your target audience then? because I have seen nobody thus far who meets the criteria of opinions you are arguing against.

Nobody here has said that a zygote is not living, or not different to an egg. It is different, but why you are choosing this phase of change as noteworthy is what is being questioned.

What is being said is that the living matter after conception is genetically unique, but not distinctly a human being, it therefore remains under the ownership of the host in which it grows.

Being genetically unique is not a requirement as in the case of twins or a clone. The entire point I am making is that it is a human being unless you attach connotations to the words "human being" that don't belong there specifically to exclude foetuses.

If I were to use the phrase "living being" instead of "human being" would you have less objection to the point? Can you accept that it is a living being, if not a human being?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The only deciding factor in when it should be removed from the woman is decided by when it should be conferred with rights.

This is true but I'm not talking about when it should be removed from the woman

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, if you could, I would like some more information (a website perhaps) on this large body of pro-choice advocates who likens the living matter of a zygote to the dead matter in a nail.

See above in our own post: "the living matter after conception is genetically unique, but not distinctly a human being, it therefore remains under the ownership of the host in which it grows". Also look up the "clump of cells" argument. It's compared to the toe nail in the "living matter but not a living being" sense and the fact that nail cells are dead isn't relevant to the point

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Like I said, I am not dealing with that question. I believe I have already agreed with Sam earlier in this thread that after conception the living matter is distinctly different to the separate matter before conception. My issue is the distinction in value that he is placing on matter after conception. He has said he is not dealing with it, but it is inferred by the discussion as a whole.

It's really not. As I have said, the problem we have is that we're having different debates. It seems you accept everything I'm saying but are inferring things from it that I am not actually saying and then arguing with those things.

It brings me back to the point Dades was making. You instinctively place value on the word "life" and so you object to me using that word in relation to foetuses, not for some objective scientific reason but because of the repercussions that doing so would have on your opinions. And if that is the case then you are my target audience. If I can show you that the word life can be objectively, scientifically applied to them, we'll be getting somewhere

rockmongrel · 10-06-2009 1:49pm

Life begins at conception.

But "living" doesn't begin until leaving the womb. This is the clear distinction for me, and I am completely pro-choice.

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 1:51pm

rockmongrel wrote: »

Life begins at conception.

But "living" doesn't begin until leaving the womb. This is the clear distinction for me, and I am completely pro-choice.

So is it ok to abort a baby the day before the woman goes into labour?

And if my distinction was that "living" didn't begin until the baby could talk, would that be ok?

rockmongrel · 10-06-2009 1:52pm

I don't want to be made into a fiend, but yes i believe so.

Dades · 10-06-2009 1:55pm

Step right people and get your pitchforks... :pac:

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 1:55pm

rockmongrel wrote: »

I don't want to be made into a fiend, but yes i believe so.

What about the babies that were born at 6 months and survived? Is it ok to kill them until they reach the normal 9 month point? Does the fact that a baby can survive perfectly well on its own the day before birth not figure in your thinking at all?

rockmongrel · 10-06-2009 1:59pm

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly...
I make the distinction between Life starting at conception, is so far as there is a biological procedure which has led to a fetus, and "Living" starting when a child is outside of the womb. So no, it would not be ok to kill a premature child, that would be murder.

MrPudding · 10-06-2009 2:11pm

I have a nice and simple view of it. I believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion if she feels that is what she needs to do. I actually don’t care whether it is a life, a human life, a human being, or would have grown up to be the person that cured cancer. I believe that the rights of the woman should take priority over that of the unborn.

I would prefer that abortions did not take place and believe that there should be a cut off point. For me a reasonable cut off point would be the point at which the foetus could survive outside of the womb, independently of the mother.

MrP

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 2:23pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I have a nice and simple view of it. I believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion if she feels that is what she needs to do. I actually don’t care whether it is a life, a human life, a human being, or would have grown up to be the person that cured cancer. I believe that the rights of the woman should take priority over that of the unborn.

I would prefer that abortions did not take place and believe that there should be a cut off point. For me a reasonable cut off point would be the point at which the foetus could survive outside of the womb, independently of the mother.

MrP

Good man, at least you're honest with yourself and don't try to define the foetus as something other than it is so you can justify it

rockmongrel wrote: »

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly...
I make the distinction between Life starting at conception, is so far as there is a biological procedure which has led to a fetus, and "Living" starting when a child is outside of the womb. So no, it would not be ok to kill a premature child, that would be murder.

Is it ok to kill the premature child if you do it by sucking it out of the womb (as some abortions are done), instead of by surgically removing it and then breaking its neck?

rockmongrel · 10-06-2009 2:33pm

Is it ok to kill the premature child if you do it by sucking it out of the womb (as some abortions are done), instead of by surgically removing it and then breaking its neck?

You seem to be making an argument against the method of abortion, as opposed to abortion itself

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 2:39pm

rockmongrel wrote: »

You seem to be making an argument against the method of abortion, as opposed to abortion itself

No I'm not, you're the one making the argument against the method. An abortion is done by sucking the foetus out of the womb. You think this is fine. But if it is surgically removed and then killed you consider it murder. Seems odd to me that the method of killing it should matter.

rockmongrel · 10-06-2009 2:41pm

What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be putting words in my mouth...

Where did I even mention the method?

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 2:43pm

rockmongrel wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? You seem to be putting words in my mouth...

Where did I even mention the method?

Well you see a distinction between abortion right up until birth and murder. The only difference between killing a foetus by sucking it out of the womb and killing it by surgically removing it and breaking its neck is the method used to kill it so why is one ok but not the other?

Dades · 10-06-2009 2:43pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seems odd to me that the method of killing it should matter.

I like a good steak myself, but I'd prefer the cow died humanely rather than being beaten to death with a bar of soap in a sock.

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 2:57pm

Dades wrote: »

I like a good steak myself, but I'd prefer the cow died humanely rather than being beaten to death with a bar of soap in a sock.

Right but you wouldn't say that one method is perfectly acceptable with no moral implications and the other is murder carrying a life sentence. There isn't really any way to kill a cow that's considered murder, just maybe unnecessarily cruel

rockmongrel · 10-06-2009 2:58pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well you see a distinction between abortion right up until birth and murder. The only difference between killing a foetus by sucking it out of the womb and killing it by surgically removing it and breaking its neck is the method used to kill it so why is one ok but not the other?

So you're ok with, as Dades says, seeing a cow bludgeoned to death, having its throat slit and bled to death or having its legs broken and starving?
There is a clear moral issue on the method something is killed.

Sam Vimes · 10-06-2009 3:02pm

rockmongrel wrote: »

So you're ok with, as Dades says, seeing a cow bludgeoned to death, having its throat slit and bled to death or having its legs broken and starving?
There is a clear moral issue on the method something is killed.

Were not talking about a cow here and you're not talking about the humaneness of the method. Let's use a humane method of killing it instead to eliminate this confusion:

Why is sucking it out ok but surgically opening the womb, cutting the umbilical cord and giving it a fatal but not painful dose of anaesthetic murder?

edit: there is also a method of abortion where a hooked shaped knife is inserted that cuts the foetus to pieces. Surely that's less humane than a dose of anaesthetic?

The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...

Comments